Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 2:31 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On the user side it is - otherwise you can't come close to posix or any
other standard that applications are developed to.
You're arguments are a wasteland of shifting sands.
POSIX complaince is one thing. A stable ABI that hardware drivers can
rely on is quite another. If all you cared about was POSIX compliance
and how "user space" interacted with the kernel the version rev of the
kernel you ran wouldn't matter at all.
I'm still left wondering what your actual complaint is. It's clearly
not what the other poster has suggested you meant... you clearly dont
care about wmware or other binary modules..or if you do you have no
idea what the fundamental issues associated with such things are as it
relates to kernel development. In any event, you are being extremely
unclear as to why the fedora kernels are a problem for you
specifically.
It doesn't have to keep changing to do that, particularly on hardware
that doesn't change, although it does need security/bugfix updates. The
concepts of open()/read()/write()/ioctl() never change. Applications, on
the other hand, are always being improved.
Are you calling the development that the upstream kernel developers
do... not improvements? I think you just insulted the upstream kernel
developers.
They are improvements to whatever extent they enable new hardware to be
used, but that is very much irrelevant on an existing, working box.
Naive.. very naive. I would encourage you to pay closer attention to
upstream work on the kernel. It would be instructive.
Isn't it more of an insult to say that yesterday's kernel isn't
usable?
Just as insulting to say that yesterday's OpenOffice isnt usable.
I'm not the one arguing that i need an older kernel with a newer
application space... you are.
If you can live with yesterday's kernel you can certainly live with
yesterday's applications.
I am arguing that Fedora as a project attempts to treat ALL the
components equally and makes an integrated experience that takes the
latest bits and drive development forward while working as closely
with the upstream development as possible... from the kernel upward
into the stack. Suggesting that its perfectly okay to freeze the
kernel over the usable lifetime of a computer system clearly
demonstrates that you do not comprehend how active kernel development.
I'm really not sure there's much more I can say constructively on the
matter. And since I'm not being paid by the word to be on this list
(unlike you clearly) then I just say good day to you and good luck.
-jef
Guy's a 10 year old kernel would not have all the stuff to boot your
Linux but it would be short many things you want. But one last year
should work just fine.
Karl
--
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Linux User
#450462 http://counter.li.org.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
